Gabriel Latner, candidate for Union president, has been penalised by the Union for speaking to the Tab, in contravention of election rules, which prohibit candidates from written campaigning, including giving interviews to the Press.

The penalty stipulates that Latner will be docked 40 per cent of the first-preference votes cast for him. Despite the penalty, Latner decided to speak to Varsity about the election race thus far.

Initially, you had indicated that you were not planning to apologise to Lauren Booth. What made you change your mind?

I said I was sorry for "speaking in haste and choosing my words poorly". It's true. I am sorry about that. The minute I said it, I thought of a dozen funnier, less vulgar comments I could have made instead. Hindsight's 20/20.

Why did you decide to run for President? Was the decision influenced by the incident surrounding your involvement in the "Israel is a rogue state" debate?

Why? I wanted to try and change the Union for the better, and I thought I could achieve that a) if I somehow won, and b) in the almost certain event of my loss, I'm still getting the chance to speak to the members about something I care about, and something I think they should care about.

My involvement with the debate has indirectly prompted me to run. I had never participated in the Union in any way  other than as a member of the audience. The chance to argue in the debate, and the interesting aftermath taught me a lot about what makes the Union tick. I've gotten to see it from a perspective that I don't think many people get the chance to experience. It brought some flaws to my attention, but it also highlighted some really exceptional aspects of the Union, foremost being some of the people involved, specifically Jeremy Schwarz, the VP, who I've come to have a great deal of respect for.

When you decided to contact the Tab, were you aware that doing so would constitute a contravention of election rules?

No. It would have been quite stupid of me if I did. The rules don't explicitly say 'you can't talk to the press'. Given that elections are (or at least should be) all about communicating ideas  to the voters, talking to media outlets is an integral part of most campaigns. I honestly didn't think that the rules would be interpreted in such a ridiculously draconian way. It's actually kind of offensive,if you think about it for a minute - they've decided to interpret the rules in such a way as to prohibit candidates from using one of the most effective methods of communicating with and informing the electorate. They evidently don't want the members to be well informed about the choices before them. They're essentially turning this into a popularity contest. Winning has become a question of who has more friends on Facebook, as opposed to who has the best ideas. 

Do you think that the Tab article gave you an unfair advantage over other candidates? If so, did you attempt to limit the publicity in any way?

No. All that article did was bring my candidacy to the attention of those members of the Union who read The Tab. It wasn't advocating that they vote for me. It gave my campaign some publicity, but that's only an unfair advantage if you assume that most people would want to vote for me, if they knew I was running. Last month the heads of ten not-insignificant societies wrote a letter complaining about me. You could safely bet that because of the Tab article, many of their members know I'm running. They won't be voting for me, but I can bet they'll be voting against me. All the piece can be said to have done is increase the voter turn out – assuming people bother voting at all.

In answer to the second question, when I was told that it was an election offence (I asked the electoral officers directly at a meeting of all the candidates), I emailed the Tab, informing them that it was an electoral malpractice, and formally requesting that they not run the article with any of my quotes.  That being said, I understand and respect the Tab's decision to run the article. A journalist shouldn't have to sit on a story just because it might cause the subject of the piece some aggravation.

What is your reaction to the Appeals Panel's decision to impose a penalty of a 40 per cent reduction of your first preference votes? Do you see it as a fair penalty?

My reactions were, in chronological order: surprise, befuddlement, amusement, hysterical laughter, and  contacting every single reporter and blogger who has been in touch with me over the last month. Was it fair? No. I may be biased, but I'm around 99% sure that this penalty reflects who I am, not what I did. As I said, I don't really think the Rules were intended to prohibit what I did, and if they were, there was discretion to impose a) no penalty, b) a far less severe penalty that wouldn't have the effect of rigging the election.

The Electoral Officers said they were imposing a 20% docking, because they thought what I did was as serious as the most severe class of offences – which are things like bribery, blackmail, fraud, and extortion. They are treating talking to a newspaper, as severely as they would a criminal offence. The Review Committee took this to even more ridiculous heights of absurdity, when they told me the docking was to remedy any unfair advantage I gained (as opposed to punishing me, which is what penalties are actually meant to do). So they picked 40%. Where did that number come from? Who knows. I'm guessing thin air. Or spite. They're trying to quantify something unquantifiable. Who knows how many people read the article? Who know how many of them are Union members? Who knows which of those members are planning to vote? Who knows how many of them will be voting for me based on the article? Who knows how many of them will be voting against me because of the article? I don't know. And I don't think Julien Domercq, Rahul Mansigani, and Jan-Jonathan Bock (the members of the Review Committee) know either. I expected something like this from Bock, with whom I have a history of rather venomous arguments (I like free markets, he doesn't). But  I expected better from Rahul. He's an elected student leader. He at least should be slightly more protective of democracy and reason.  All three of them however have held elected positions, so they should at least be aware that appearances count for a lot. How does this look? How does it reflect on the Union?

More importantly, this isn't fair to the membership. The Review Committee has essentially punished any members who choose to vote for me, by declaring that their votes are half as important as their peers'. I wonder, were the government to act in such a way as to change the value of your vote, depending on who you vote for, if Rahul, as CUSU President would  favour the policy. More likely, he'd arrange for another CUSU supported bus load of protesters to have a nice field trip in London.

This is even unfair to my fellow candidates. Francesca Hill, since the beginning of the campaign, has been predicted to win by a heavy margin by most people aware of this race. While this penalty is unlikely to change the end result of the election, I would hate for anyone to consider Francesca's victory to be tainted or qualified by this decision. She's worked too hard.

I'd also like to know what they're doing with that 40% of votes they're discarding. Will the second preference candidate get them as first preference votes? No one's told me yet. Although it's not unusual for the current union clique to keep information like that to themselves.

What are your expectations about what will happen tomorrow in the election?

People will vote.

I don't have any statistics from previous elections, but going by Facebook pages, and the fact that Lauren Davidson (President-Elect) won with around 210 votes (so I was told), I think it will turn out something like this: I'll receive around 40 votes, which after the penalty is applied, will end up counting as around 24 votes. RON will do slightly better. Francesca will get 200+ votes, and win. I imagine Christian Gowers will end up somewhere in-between. And the Union will remain pretty much unchanged. The same type of people will be making the same mistakes, and members will become even more disillusioned and apathetic.

Put it this way: if I win, I will be spending a considerable amount of money on lottery tickets.

Why have you agreed to this interview, given that it could lead to further penalties imposed on you as a candidate?

I think it's important that people know what's going on – same reason I spoke with the Tab.  As to the possibility of further penalties – it would kind of be like sentencing someone serving a life sentence to another 100 years in jail. I wasn't ever going to win this election. Anything else they throw at me now will just make them look kind of silly.  Plus, I don't think I'm breaking any of the rules – I'm not soliciting votes, or talking about my campaign. I'm talking about what I see as a fairly ridiculous disciplinary hearing, and the resulting punishment. While there is a certain cadre of people currently running the Union may not like that, I don't think they can do much. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.